Will Foster and Partners reap what they sow?
When we think of the London skyline we think of numerous iconic buildings and structures from the big contenders of Canary Warf to the cultural players such as Houses of Parliament, St Paul’s Cathedral, but also the tourist trap, the London Eye. However, we now have a new player entering the discussion under the name ‘Tulip’. The new proposal was revealed by Norman Foster in mid-November. A 305m glass viewing tower situated alongside another Foster creation, the Gherkin in the City of London. I wanted to address such a daring idea and see how the designers of the future responded to it.
The new proposal has caused some controversy, with people commenting on several different aspects of it. First and foremost, the form of the Tulip is daring. Regardless of any other benefits it may bring, the exterior façade is what the majority will judge it by. This façade, although called the ‘Tulip,’ has been said to resemble numerous other different formations (not all positive…). The terms ‘cotton bud’, ‘mushroom’ and ‘spaceship’ were a frequent response, alas, ‘tulip’ was not. We can ask if having a form is even a beneficial idea to explore? The outcome of a form specific design can be said to create an artificial outcome, instead of an organic narrative and development. The following of formations as architectural precedents is an idea we can easily fall into, but can you really recreate anything as spectacular as the original? ‘The architect and society both have misgivings about the iconic building but cannot help producing it, in ever greater numbers and ever weirder forms.’ (Jencks, 2006) Are our great British architects competing to create new iconic buildings, each trying to outdo the other in scale, complexity, materiality and even expense?
Looking at the bigger picture, the form, which presents clear ideas of curvature is stood beside another building of similar fundamental ideas, 30 St Mary Axe. However, do the two compliment one another? When asked, the collective response believed that in fact the two didn’t enhance one another, but actually detracted from one another.
Foster and Partners
In terms of function, The ‘Tulip’ is described as “a new public cultural and tourist attraction proposed for the City of London” (Foster and Partners, 2018). Essentially, the structure consists of the ‘stem’, made of concrete and the upper egg-like glass structure on top, hosting a range of visitor attractions and facilitating a space for learning, as well as an impressive viewing platform. However, does the design make the most of the space, what happens within the ‘stem’? Even though the form is new to the London skyline, the function certainly isn’t. Do we need more structures to look at the skyline? We already have numerous options; The London Eye, The shard, even St Paul’s; perhaps we aren’t in need of another.
This can lead on to the question, what does London need? In a time of drastic uncertainty, we have to question what we need in our Capital. This comes down to the ideas of necessity. Foster believes in his proposal as a way of bringing even more tourism to the city, especially to this eastern part of London. London itself is the second most visited city in the world and this new proposal can only enhance this. And in doing so, further boost the economy. But is it still necessary? Instead, it could be said that we should be focusing on the people who live here, and the need for better housing, better schools, hospitals and other amenities.
Foster and Partners
Then again, is it really so extravagant? Isn’t this type of extremity and finesse simply what Foster and Partners stand for? A source of innovative architecture that strives to push the boundaries of what we understand to be functional space and form. Whether you like or dislike Foster’s exploration and expression of ideas, the function behind the design tries to incorporate important principles, such as strong sustainability objectives, both economic and social benefits (including learning facilities), but also creating an impressive space, resulting in memorable experiences. Do these strengths succeed in convincing us that his design is one that can win over the speculations of many and fight for it as a form of necessity and not expensive luxury?
Written by: Martha Titcombe
Jencks, C. (2006) The Iconic building is here to stay. [online]. (1), p.4 [Accessed 01 December 2018]